I have been recently reading Richard Carrier’s “On the Historicity of Jesus” where he reviews the available evidence to try to determine whether Jesus Christ was an historical man or a myth. Spoiler alert: myth is leading by a large margin.
As a recovering Southern Baptist, I feel my knowledge of the Bible is above average. It was drilled into me from an early age. This has served me well in debating religionists. They hate nothing more than having their own scriptures thrown back at them. In reading Mr. Carrier’s review of the book of Mark I came across some information I had not before noticed. Let me paraphrase for you.
Jesus and the guys decided to get together to celebrate the Passover with the seder. During the meal Jesus got bummed out and paranoid and said no one loved him and they were going to betray him. He said the bread was his body and the wine was his blood. They should eat and drink in the future in remembrance of him. They were all pretty grossed out and decided he was a real buzzkill. Judas sneaked out.
After more drinking they decided they needed some air so they walked down to the park (in the middle of the night). Once there, Jesus ditched them and went off by himself. The book of Mark says he went off to pray, but since the book purports to be an eye witness account, we don’t know what he did. He was supposedly alone. He could have been praying, he could have been taking a shit. We just don’t know.
Then the police raided the park. They snagged Jesus as they hoped. When he was taken, he was also with a naked young man who escaped and “ran away naked”. Apparently it was THAT kind of park? At this point Mark should have added in Jesus saying “do this in remembrance of me” as an excuse for future catholic priests.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
I try not to debate the holy babble... it is the book of multiple choice answers. In other words, interpretation is entirely subjective
I have just finished carriers book and he uses the mathematical formula called bayors Theim pardon me if my spelling is a little off. In the 800 plus pages of the book he comes to the conclusion that jesus was a myth. he cites a lot of good reasons here and goes on to say that scholars like himself who put forth mythical interpretation of the bible and historical jesus studies should be respected much more then they currently are. it`s a good book with many footnotes. I personally think that Jesus was a failed apocalyptic prophet and that he started a following that I would consider was a cult. As the late Christopher Hitchens said And I side with the leading scholar today on biblical studies who calls himself an agnostic Bart ehrman.
@AB, so you, a devout Catholic apologist, spouter of gospel, troller of forums now say "I personally think that Jesus was a failed apocalyptic prophet and that he started a following that I would consider was a cult"
Boom.
Exposed.
Troll.
You are right, he is totally inconsistent. Every few months he seems to flip from atheist, to deist, or hardcore catholic. I think he is mentally ill, not exactly a troll; but who knows.
@AB
Wow, you said something I agree with. So, now that we agree that Jesus was probably a euhemerized from a pre-existing Jewish myth, what does Christianity have left for you? If it's not based on truth, and you recognize it, what reason do you have to follow it? Why not another religion? Of course, I'd say they are all untrue, but at least if you realized the unttuth of one... Maybe we can get you to think about why you subscribe to it over any other.
agnostic believer "I side with the leading scholar today on biblical studies who calls himself an agnostic Bart ehrman."
--------------------------------------------
Bart Ehrman is an atheist, and an agnostic, as they're not mutually exclusive.
Check out his blog....
https://ehrmanblog.org/agnostic-or-atheist-for-members/
Agnostic as defined by the OED
noun
1. a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.
Atheist as defined by the OED
NOUN
A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.
Of course agnosticism would depend on how you define God, and you need not be agnostic about related claims which are falsifiable and therefore testable. I don't believe a deity exists, which makes me an atheist. I am agnostic about all claims that are unfalsifiable, as epistemology demands I must be.
A good friend recomended me Richard Carrier, and the truth is he's great: Dr. Carrier provides with a lot of interesting ideas to find out the Bible is a book of fiction. For me, one of the most fascinating remarks is that clearly the Bible presents onion structures (typical of mythology) and other untypical resources of a historical book, but rather those of a fictional one.
I attach an image he uses in the conference "Why the Gospels are Myth?" as an example of what I'm saying. It's the Matthew's chiasmus, kind of a mirror. As you can see, more than supernatural words, this estructure seems like the work of any sloppy fictional writer, as simple and obvious work of fantasy as it is.
P.S. @Agnostic, since Jesus is not mentioned by any historian of his time (and the Gospels are neither contemporary to him), the texts in which he appears where chosen and rewritten in Nicea, and he presents so many similarities to other ancient Mediterranean myths, my guess is that he simply never existed.
(edited to fix)
Attachments
Attach Image/Video?:
DancingFool,
If we can all agree that the idea of a magic Jewish zombie is going to save us from our sins is asinine and that true believers will spend eternity with him and his zoo of weird creatures in some heaven then we can start to examine the story from a rational perspective. If we can't agree on that then it's impossible to examine the story from a human nature point of view (pov).
It's a very complex issue to examine because of the many pov's and would take many posts to do it justice.
While the biblical story is just an elaborate fairy tale the religion is very real and can't be ignored even though they are two separate issues.
I hadn't heard of this book, but I'll check it out on the strength of the comments here. Thanks guys.
I would also recommend "Proving History" by Richard Carrier where he details the methodology behind it all.